Case law

Colella v. Androus

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2022

VCPA claim because they concluded it did not so qualify. … (1) Is a party’s later position clearly inconsistent with its earlier position?

Hoffman v. District of Columbia

643 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2009

It is well established that §§ 1981 2 *137 and 1983 3 “do not apply to actions against the United States.” 4 Hohri, 782 F.2d at 245 n. 43; see also United States v. … agency did not constitute a final denial notice because it did not mention, let alone deny, the plaintiffs FTCA claims, was not sent by certified or registered mail by the agency and the title of the document showed it was clearly

Hagos v. Pompeo

District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2020

Cir. 2006) (concluding that “Congress clearly has waived sovereign immunity from [Title VII] claims of retaliation”). … ‘established the principle that (a) the federal government, (b) federal contractors, and (c) recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate against the handicapped.’” Milbert v. Koop, 830 F.2d 354, 355 (D.C.

James v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

Larkin] 9 personally liable fades into respondeat superior or vicarious liability, clearly barred under Section 1983.” Id. at 27. Ms. … Larkin, the court need not reach whether these two defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 10 IV.

In Re Special Counsel Investigation

332 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2004

a “newsman can claim no general immunity, qualified or otherwise, from grand jury questioning. … has also established that Special Counsel would be able to meet even the most stringent of balancing tests.

Reading v. United States

506 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2007

But Rule 4(c) expressly and clearly prohibits a plaintiff from effectuating service on a defendant. See, e.g., Otto v. … None of these statutes establishes the prerequisite to a suit against the federal government — waiver of sovereign immunity. Lombard v. United States, 690 F.2d 215, 218 (D.C.Cir.1982).

Smith v. Clinton

253 F. Supp. 3d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2017

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. … To qualify as sufficiently extreme and outrageous, the conduct at issue must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and

Emrit v. Devos

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2020

Nor has it waived the Department of Education’s sovereign immunity as to injunctive relief. … Furthermore, the “Debt Collection Improvement Act clearly makes Social Security benefits subject to offset” to collect student loan debt, Lockhart v.

Fuentes v. National Education Ass'n

752 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 1989

The proof clearly establishes that the vacancy should never have been posted from the outset. The vacancy was for a new management position created within the research group. … Moreover, the record clearly establishes that Cameron did not at any time indicate to Fuentes he would, in effect, have an inside track to any management job that opened up.

Sabbithi v. Al Saleh

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2009

A defendant’s diplomatic immunity “may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual. . . .” 22 U.S.C. § 254d. … “A treaty will not be deemed to have been abrogated or modified by a later statute, unless such purpose on the part of Congress has been clearly expressed.” Cook v.

Hsieh v. CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

698 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2010

Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“sovereign immunity claims are jurisdictional and thus cannot be waived”). … Federal Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment It is well established that “[t]he federal government is ‘immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.’ ” Kalodner v.

Low v. Whitman

207 F.R.D. 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 2002

Plaintiff also contends that Spears is not sufficiently highly ranked within the agency to qualify for the type of immunity defendant claims he is due. Id. … If plaintiff can establish from those transcripts or elsewhere a compelling ease that Spears can be expected to provide information that no one else has, I would certainly reconsider my decision. *14 CONCLUSION For the reasons

Tidewater Investment Srl v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2018

Cir. 1980).2 But under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., “a court cannot simply enter default judgment; rather, out of respect for the principle of sovereign immunity, it must … Though the FSIA codified the principle that foreign states are by and large immune from suit in the United States, it provides a set of enumerated exceptions to that general grant of immunity, including, such as here, when

Mitchell v. Holliday

202 F. Supp. 3d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2016

Cir. 2011) (“It is a well-established rule that the Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction. … Mitchell’s qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g) to conclude that the interest of justice will not be served by transferring this case to its sister court in Colorado. IV.

Halleck v. Berliner

427 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 1977

No judicial precedent which has been cited or found points clearly to the proper resolution of this problem. … “The terms ‘exceptionally well qualified’, ‘well qualified’, ‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ do not lend themselves to easy definition.

Transamerican Steamship Corp. v. Somali Democratic Republic

590 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 1984

United Technologies, the Court of Appeals established a four-step inquiry: “As a prerequisite, the Court must establish whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case. … that the requirement is satisfied whenever the foreign forum possesses the equivalents of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, although “rare circumstances” may exist where the “remedy offered by the other forum is clearly

Hammons v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2023

The Act provides that foreign states ordinarily enjoy sovereign immunity from suits in U.S. courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1604, but also establishes several exceptions to that rule, see, e.g., id. §§ 1605- 1605B. … Among other things, the Camp Sullivan attack qualifies as an act of terrorism covered by the Act, and Plaintiffs’ expert evidence shows that Iran’s material support for the Taliban was a proximate cause of the bombing.

Baxter v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2025

LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) together establish the standard a court must apply in determining whether to award default judgment to a plaintiff proceeding … Ifa plaintiff can establish both that (i) they are a member of an enumerated class® and (ii) the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity applies and the defendant’s sovereign immunity is waived, the defendant “shall be

United States v. Slough

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2009

The government has acknowledged that many of these statements qualify as compelled statements under Garrity v. … jury . . . then the government clearly has used the immunized testimony”).

Blumenthal v. Drudge

992 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 1998

Congress made no distinction between publishers and distributors in providing immunity from liability. … As one court has explained: At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet.